"Rely on the Law and...," Buddha

Introduction

It is extremely rare for any of my readers to post comments to my blog posts, although I've always encouraged responses. However, on Oct. 22 someone did exactly that. So I will use this post to reply again. I'd already replied once, in the form of a comment posted under his/her original comment. Both of these comments as well as the post commented upon can be seen here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/09/to-sgi-part-2.html

I value your comments and give their contents a lot of thought. I might not agree with what you have to say, but I definitely give your words my utmost attention.

"Rely on the Law and not upon persons."


QUOTE:

The words of the various teachers are in themselves of no use at all. The Buddha gave strict counsel against following them with his statement in the Nirvana Sutra, “Rely on the Law and not upon persons.”

:UNQUOTE: "The Teaching, Practice, and Proof," an essay by Nichiren written in 1275.

The quote immediately above is a good example of the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination - which means simply that there isn't anything that has an existence independent of other phenomenon. As applied to the first sentence (containing the aqua-colored highlight):  Even the words of the Buddhas in themselves are of no use at all. For one thing, even the greatest teachers fail by using words alone if their pupils aren't interested or don't have the capacity to understand the lessons.

The second quoted sentence (containing the yellowed highlight) invites a question: Doesn't the Law require a person or persons to teach it? Since according to dependent origination the Law cannot exist by itself, the Law (in order to be meaningful) has to manifest itself in phenomenon (such as teachers). However, the Buddha spoke of attaining wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, Buddha wisdom. How can anything come of itself without violating dependent origination or, for that matter, the Law of Cause and Effect?

Obviously, nothing can. So why did the Buddha speak of teacherless wisdom - wisdom that seems to be disconnected from humans as if it's out there just floating around until we acquire it? I think he did so as an encouragement for those people living in a time when there is no Buddha in the world to teach them. However, as the following quote makes clear, the Buddha is always in the world though not visible to us and that the apparently teacherless wisdom has an inconspicuous Buddha behind it, using subtle methods to convey (that is, teach) it to us.

QUOTE [Chapter 16, Lotus Sutra*]:

I am the father of this world,
saving those who suffer and are afflicted.
Because of the befuddlement of ordinary people,
though I live, I give out word I have entered extinction.
For if they see me constantly,
arrogance and selfishness arise in their minds.
Abandoning restraint, they give themselves up to the five
desires
and fall into the evil paths of existence.
Always I am aware of which living beings
practice the way, and which do not,
and in response to their need for salvation
I preach various doctrines for them.

:UNQUOTE.

The sentence I yellowed is one reason why I claim Shakyamuni Buddha didn't die in ancient India over 2,000 years ago. He's alive and with us and I don't mean only in spirit - I mean, he's got a body that is no different from the one he had before he "died." And this body can be shapeshifted as is made clear numerous times in the Lotus Sutra. The Buddha is always here, always teaching us but not as he did before, in terms of being the leader of a great assembly of Seekers of the Way well-known throughout the land.

The part highlighted in aqua is fascinating: Why would people fall prey to arrogance and selfishness, abandon restraint, and end up wallowing in sensuality if they see the Buddha constantly? That would seem to cast doubt upon the ability of the Buddha to save people, since his extended presence sends them in the other direction. Maybe the answer lies in having too much of a good thing which comes to be relied on, completely replacing one's own efforts. I think the Buddha subtracts himself from the world - that is, apparently does so - in order to encourage his disciples to stand on their own two feet. He'll always be around to teach us - perhaps by whispering in our ears or setting up object lessons for us - but we'll be thinking we're learning and improving by ourselves. Which is a great confidence builder, so we don't always remain as little children constantly leaning on our teachers.

An evaluation using Ohm's Law

Ohm’s Law can be written: I = V/R

In plain English, that’s “Current equals Voltage divided by Resistance.” However, keep in mind: This only applies in a closed-system known as a circuit. A simple circuit would consist of a battery (voltage source or causative agent if you prefer) with a single loop of wire connecting one of its terminals to the other, with a resistor inserted somewhere on that wire. In the example below, that resistor takes the form of a light bulb, which offers resistance (to the flow of current) which in fact helps define the amount of the current flowing through the circuit.

What I call Om’s Law, on the other hand, can be written: E = C/R [note the similarity with Ohm’s Law stated earlier as I = V/R].

You could say E = C/R means that any given Effect (E) - for example, the current flowing in an electric circuit - can be calculated if its Cause(s) (C) - for example, the voltage provided by a battery in an electric circuit - and Resistance(s) (R) - for example, the resistance provided by a light bulb into which current flows in a circuit - are known. But there is another way of looking at this relationship: Effect is Cause and Resistance. In fact, you cannot obtain any effect without both C & R being present. Most people would be surprised that you simply cannot obtain any kind of effect without resistance also being present. We don't normally think of resistance as being a good thing - framing it as an impediment instead.

Look at E = C/R from this perspective:

E = Enlightenment (the Ultimate Effect which inspires all buddhist practice - that is, to someday become a Buddha, a fully-enlightened one).

C = Cause (all of the positive deeds embraced by the six paramitas**, which buddhists strive to perform, since there can be no buddhahood without a long track record of performing good and selfless deeds).

R = Resistance (all of the negative deeds - or evil karma - which put a drag on our attainment of buddhahood).

In the equation (E = C/R), if R is reduced to a very small value (that is, if most of our negative karma is totally erased), then the value of E would approach infinity, unless of course the value of C is simultaneously reduced to a very small value.

The problem, though, is that R can only approach zero, since it isn't possible to divide by zero - algebraically, that's not permitted. So what this means is, once someone attains Buddhahood, Resistance (R or negative karma) would still be present in his E (or Enlightened) state. Most people would hesitate to consider a Buddha as someone who still has even the smallest trace of sin present in his life. But the irony is, he couldn't be enlightened without it - that little bit of sin will always be present and will always be a factor when "calculating" - that is, considering - the magnitude of his Enlightenment.

Apparently this limiting-but-defining factor has something to do with why not all Buddhas are created equal. The Lotus Sutra cites the examples of several Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who have received predictions of someday attaining buddhahood. And there are differences in their characteristics - they're not all the same in terms of any kind of "infinite" aspects. Some have life spans of only one kalpa*** - others with trillions of kalpas***. Some have more followers than others; Shakyamuni is the leader of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth (while no other Buddha is mentioned as having such a unique distinction); same with Many Treasures Buddha, being unique in the function of his funerary tower.

So it's obvious that not all Buddhas are equal. Could that mean that there is one Buddha superior to all of the others? Maybe, but he couldn't be infinitely superior simply because it's mathematically impossible to divide by zero as I mentioned earlier.

A disturbing possibility

The Lotus Sutra speaks of devils who will come to reside in certain buddha lands, but will (instead of committing evil acts) support the Buddhist Law. That seems to indicate that even a devil has it somewhere in his heart to someday become a Buddha. Does that, however, mean that a Buddha could have it somewhere in his heart to become a devil?

We freely accept that even a devil could someday become a Buddha. But could we so easily accept that even a Buddha could someday become a devil - that is, backslide - even though the Lotus Sutra speaks of the stage of non-regression?

For now, I'll leave that question for you, since I'm still meditating on the answer.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Asterisked items above

* Page 273 of The Lotus Sutra and it's Opening and Closing Sutras, translated by Burton Watson, and published by the Soka Gakkai International in 2009. Page 273 is part of the Lotus Sutra portion of this book.

** six paramitas: Six practices (or "perfections") needed to attain enlightenment: almsgiving, keeping of the precepts, forbearance, assiduousness in practice, meditation, and wisdom.

*** kalpa: According to wikipedia: "In another simple explanation, there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years[1]), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years."